(1.) HEARD and gone through the record. The respondent was sent up for trial for an offence punishable, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, for allegedly raping a girl below 16 years of age in a village forest, in the month of March, 1991. A written complaint was lodged to the Judicial Magistrate, by the prosecutrix on 19th July, 1991 about the alleged incident of rape, in which it was alleged that she had been forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse and was threatened not to disclose this act to anybody and that later Whether reporters of local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? on, when she came to know that she was pregnant, she told the respondent about the said fact and he promised to marry her, but later on he backed out. The concerned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Rohru, for investigation. A case was formally registered against the respondent. The prosecutrix was got medically examined. It was found that she was carrying pregnancy of 18 to 20 weeks. The medical examination was conducted on 29th July, 1991. She was also subjected to ossification test, per which her skeletal age was 151/2 to 20 years. On the completion of investigation, respondent was challaned. The trial court has acquitted the respondent, holding that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is self contradictory and the age of the prosecutrix appears to be of more than 16 years, at the time of alleged incident and from her own version, it appears that she was a consenting party to the alleged act of sexual intercourse.
(2.) STATE has appealed against the aforesaid findings and order of acquittal.
(3.) AS already noticed, the prosecutrix alleged that she was subjected to sexual intercourse by use of force and was then put under the fear of death, but while appearing as PW1, the prosecutrix did not say that any force was used or any threat was administered after the act was committed. She stated that she was given an assurance by the respondent that he would be marrying her.